The link was farked when I clicked on it. Challenger is a very good tank, even though I am partial to the M1-A1 Abrams, it would do in a pinch. I wouldn't be caught alive in a T-55 or T-72 (IE shooting fodder for a Challenger or Abrams). In the first gulf conflict, we lost 900. I kind of doubt that a RPG would take out a new British/American tank unless he lobbed it inside the turret.

An American helicopter accidently launched a Hellfire missile at an American tank at the beginning of the gulf war II. Instead of killing the tank as it hit it (like it would a T-55 or T-72) it merely shook the turret and injured a crewman. (Note:Injured = Still alive).

IronMdn: A retired Army General told me an interesting story from the '91 Gulf War. Apparently, an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in a sinkhole (an Abrams weighs in excess of 68 tons) and could not be pulled out, either by other tanks of by an M88 combat recovery vehicle (think of it as a tank tow-truck).

The armored element commander decided that it would just be easier to abandon the tank and destroy it in place, to prevent it from being stripped for intel purposes by the Iraqis. From relatively close range, it took 18 HEAT and sabot rounds from another Abrams to knock out the stuck M1A1. And the 18th shot was effective only because it struck the tank in a known vulnerability on the turret.

Eraser8That would be a good fight. I think that both tanks would inflict significant damage on each other rendering them unuseable but their crews would have a much higher chance of surviving than if they were in a T-72

Well, there are Tank competitions every year (in Canada if I recall correctly) and the Amerians have usually won, although the Germans and Brits are right up there. I think part of it is that that the American at Ft. Hood get a LOT of long range practive time. Beats me, I was a grunt. A very good grunt, but no speekee tankee.

I thought I read in some science journal that a depleted uranium jacketed discarding sabot round makes easy work of our reactive armor. But I could be mistaken. Either way, not too many countries have weapons grade depleted uranium.

Its really anyone's call who would win that scrap. They both have similar strengths and vice versa. It would probably come down to who's moral was better, who got more sleep, and what they had for breakfast.

Heh, I'm in FDC. That's Fat Dry and Comfortable. I see tanks in the motor pool but that's about it. I'd love to tear ass in an Abrahms though, I've just driven smaller tracked vehicles up til now. But, hell, you've never been off-roading until you've driven through all kinds of hell in a tracked vehicle or a humvee. Sweeeet.

M.C.PeePants, the thing about depleted uranium shells is that to have them you have to be a nuclear power, since to get the U-238 that is used in shells you need to remove the U-235 that is used in nuclear reactions. The United States will likely never go to war with a nuclear armed enemy, so really the concept of uranium shells destroying our tanks is pretty much a moot point.

I have read in places though that we have more than just reactive armor. Reactive armor is merely meant to take out missiles and RPG rounds and such, I don't think its supposed to take out shells or SABOT rounds, but our tanks are designed to defend against them anyways. We actually have depleted uranium armor inside our tanks. Not sure why.